From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:52419 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753640AbcBPHJS (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:09:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:08:37 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [STABLE] kernel oops which can be fixed by peterz's patches Message-ID: <20160216070837.GA5972@X58A-UD3R> References: <20160105085211.GB3621@X58A-UD3R> <20160105091444.GZ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160125072503.GB17836@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160125072503.GB17836@X58A-UD3R> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non > > trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I > > suppose backporting them isn't a problem. > > Hello, > > What do you think about the way to solve this oops problem? Could you just > give your opinion of the way? Or ack or nack about this backporting? Or would it be better to create a new simple patch with which we can solve the oops problem, because your patch is too complicated to backport to stable tree? What do you think about that?